-16right of defense was not foreseeable” and that other irregularities also occurred during the procedure that violated the right of defense. Meanwhile, it argued that with respect to the first dismissal, redress was only granted for pain and suffering for violation of the right to a hearing, and not for any other violation. Likewise, the Commission noted that, “Since the possibility of appealing the Legislative Assembly's decision was not regulated, to the detriment of Mr. Colindres, the State failed to comply with the right established in Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention.” It added that “the Constitutional Division breached its obligation by not analyzing compatibility of the arguments raised by Mr. Colindres in light of the rights protected under the Constitution and in the Convention, thereby violating article 25.” The Commission alleged that the arbitrary dismissal of Mr. Colindres also violated Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 59. The Commission also pointed out that “The State had not adopted legislative measures to create a disciplinary regime for TSE magistrates, and therefore[,] at the time of the events[,] there were no disciplinary grounds or applicable sanctions. A disciplinary process in these circumstances was, in itself, contrary to the principle of legality.” It indicated that the application by analogy of the requirements for appointing TSE judges to exercise disciplinary authority also violated the principle of legality. Similarly, the Commission indicated that Article 2 of the Convention had been violated due to the inadequacy of the domestic legal system. 60. The representatives pointed out that Mr. Colindres Schonenberg was removed without the existence of a law that established which was the competent body and without a predetermined procedure. They argued that "the Legislative Assembly, in a sui generis and improvised fashion, developed a sanctioning disciplinary procedure.” They indicated that in the dismissal proceedings, the right to be heard was violated and that "he had no real opportunity to defend himself, much less to prepare his defense." They also pointed out that the right to due process within a reasonable time was violated since in the first dismissal, there was no process and in the second, he was only given three days to argue against his dismissal. They argued that “any means of evidence showing” that the alleged victim had acted incorrectly was “disregarded, thus violating the right to the presumption of innocence. They pointed out that in the first dismissal, the right to know the accusation in advance and in detail was not respected. They indicated that the lack of legal basis for a procedure to remove a TSE judge violated the principle of legality. They argued that there were no disciplinary grounds or applicable sanctions, since the decrees under which Mr. Colindres was removed did not establish a clear list of the specific matters in which he had been involved, what facts compromised his impartiality, nor was any rule or law named to justify the sanction. 61. The representatives pointed out that “the Legislative Assembly did not consider incorporating an appeal in the removal of [Mr. Colindres Schonenberg]” and that upon deciding on the amparo application, the Constitutional Division” put the alleged victim's “human rights at total risk.” As to the judgment following the first dismissal, it said that the Constitutional Division “should have addressed many other elements and not only the right to a hearing.” They also indicated that although the State did provide compensation as to the first dismissal, the damage caused not only affected his person, but also Salvadoran institutions and, that damage has not yet been repaired.” Likewise, they argued that “[n]ot only were” Mr. Colindres’s “duties interrupted as a TSE judge, but the actual possibility of holding any other public office was also restricted.” Lastly, they argued that the State violated Article 2 of the Convention since “it continues to fail to establish a norm that determines the assumptions and […] procedures to be followed when it is considered that a TSE judge should be removed.” 62. The State indicated “that the rights to judicial guarantees, to the principle of legality, and to judicial protection have been respected and guaranteed to Mr. [Colindres Schonenberg], by having exercised control through domestic remedies, [and] the actions of the Legislative Assembly